We need a nationwide ban on cellphone/texting in cars - NHTSA

[TheBrown57]

"There is a large body of evidence showing that talking on a phone, whether handheld or hands-free, impairs driving and increases your risk of having a crash," says Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,

http://www.pcworld.com/article/246284/handsfree_phones_are_just_as_risky_as_handsets_research_says.html

[Bad324]

We need a nationwide ban on morons getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. I hereby declare myself as Czar to that throne and will have the power to arrest someone for their lack of ability to properly control a motor vehicle. It will be based on my judgement along with a panel of handpicked experts. That is all

Edited December 15, 2011 by Bad324

[Disclaimer]

Making laws to dictate behavior? I sure am glad that crack is illegal. I'd hate to end up hanging out in the men's room' date=' soliciting handies for dollars. [/quote']

Since when have YOU ever needed crack for that? #ConvenientExcuses

[tyler524]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/246284/handsfree_phones_are_just_as_risky_as_handsets_research_says.html

Ok so where is the study about talking to a passenger, singing to a song, looking at your gauges, it changing the radio? My point is that these results that they get could be said about any activity while driving that takes any focus away from a moron. Should we all ne driving around in one seat cars that have no radio, controls, or gauges that could distract you from the road? Idiots are just that and no amount of legislation is going to change that.

[tyler524]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/246284/handsfree_phones_are_just_as_risky_as_handsets_research_says.html

However, this doesn't necessarily translate into "cellphones are dangerous." The AP points out that there is no hard evidence that accidents are increasing because of phone use--in fact, last year highway fatalities in the United States hit a record low--the lowest since 1949.

Also from your article. Anyone can skew information or be selective about which information they want to support their agenda.

[Scruit]

Making laws to dictate behavior? I sure am glad that crack is illegal. I'd hate to end up hanging out in the men's room' date=' soliciting handies for dollars. [/quote']

Not sure how thathas anythign to do with my question. or human relaity. But ok.

We can argue both sides of this debate and still be right. One one hand laws will always be broken by some people, so a LAW does not PREVENT a behavior. On the other hand, the law (and the consequences thereof) does keep most people honest.

So there will always be people who are DUI despite DUI laws. But DUI is such a dangerous thing that we have to punish it severely. People think they can drink drunk and still be ok. They're wrong. It's only a small subset of the population who are stupid enough to drive drunk. Most people whon't drive druink because the consequences are dire.

There will always be people who speed depsite speeding laws. It's kinda dangerous but not as much, so the consequenes are less, unless you're tonning it and get a reck-op too. A car doing 10 over the limit on the freeway is not a fatality waiting to happen. In fact a ticket is a small enough fine enough that people consider a speeding ticket to be an occupational hazard and almost everyone speeds.

There will always be people who ignore the texting laws. A driver texting with a handheld phone is just as dangerous as a drunk driver. The consequences, therefore, should match. If it was a $100 ticket then it woudl be an "occupational hazard" situation. It needs to be a "nobody in theri right mind would do it" situation.

Arguments against the law fall into on or more of the following categories:

1) Unenforceable. Understood - it will be difficult. Let's talk about how best to do that.

2) "I can text and drive at the same time and have never killed anyone." That's because you're too distracted to notice how bad your driving is.

3) "What if there is an emergency?" Pull over. Any emergency that cannot wait 30 seconds for you to pull over is an emergency that you cannot deal with miles from the emergency location anyway.

4) "I don't like the government making laws". Who gets to decide which laws are valid and which are not? I know at least one person who would love DUI laws to not exist because he'd have not been punished for nearly killing 3 people after "a couple of beers". I know 2 other people who hated the fact that DUI laws didn't protect them in that same incident. And there are countless folks who would be very happy toknow that this man was not allowed to drive for 18 months as a result of his crime.

Nothing like an 80mph head-on accident to adjust your attitude on DUI. And I'd venture to say the same applies to people texting.

Anyone ever noticed someone swerving all over the road becuase they're spending 90% of their time staring at their phone?

[Scruit]

Making laws to dictate behavior? I sure am glad that crack is illegal. I'd hate to end up hanging out in the men's room' date=' soliciting handies for dollars. [/quote']

Making something illega doens't stop it happening. It merely empowers the police to do somethign about it. If DUI was not illegal then the cops would have no choice but to let some guy who's skulled an entire case of Old Mill Donkey drive away again.

As it exists, all the cop can do about a texter (on most jurisdictions) it to ask him to put it down and let him go. And I betcha the little brat will have posted "FTP" on his facebook via mobile before he gets to the next light. Banning it will allow the officer to intervene when he sees it happening.

[Steve Butters]

N

There will always be people who ignore the texting laws. A driver texting with a handheld phone is just as dangerous as a drunk driver. The consequences, therefore, should match. If it was a $100 ticket then it woudl be an "occupational hazard" situation. It needs to be a "nobody in theri right mind would do it" situation.

1. where is your proof for this statement?

2. you could make the exact assumption about people doing a lot of things in a car - eating, talking to passengers, changing location on a gps, rummaging through a purse or bag looking for something, taking off a shoe to itch their foot, rifling through a cd case to find a new cd to listen to, changing the station on an ipod, deciding the weather is nice out and removing a jacket or sweatshirt, etc.....there are so many things you could assume are "just as dangerous as driving drunk", theres not enough laws that can be made to prevent people from doing everything they do while driving. is txting a problem? sure. will banning it make people pay more attention to the road? dont be so naive

[snot]

1. where is your proof for this statement?

2. you could make the exact assumption about people doing a lot of things in a car - eating, talking to passengers, changing location on a gps, rummaging through a purse or bag looking for something, taking off a shoe to itch their foot, rifling through a cd case to find a new cd to listen to, changing the station on an ipod, deciding the weather is nice out and removing a jacket or sweatshirt, etc.....there are so many things you could assume are "just as dangerous as driving drunk", theres not enough laws that can be made to prevent people from doing everything they do while driving. is txting a problem? sure. will banning it make people pay more attention to the road? dont be so naive

This was my point a few pages ago. That is why the police can pull you over if you are driving reckless. It covers everything.

[John]

Someone show me how or why this falls under federal jurisdiction. This is a state issue.

what they do is say, your state must have a law X, or else you dont get any federal highway funding.

same thing they do with speed limits and DUI .08 limit.

[baptizo]

This is how police states begin...

[Casper]

LoL.. begin?

The Patriot Act is how police states begin. NDAA2012 is how you make sure you can enforce the police state.

[chevysoldier]

1. where is your proof for this statement?

I think there have been studies comparing OVI to driving and texting. IIRC texting is just as dangerous if not more so that operating a vehicle while intoxicated. I'd have to look around though.

Mythbusters also tested this:

Driving while talking on a cell phone is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated.

CONFIRMED

Both Adam and Kari failed a general-purpose road safety test while talking on a cell phone and while driving drunk, with cell phones by a wider margin. However, Adam commented that one can easily put away a cell phone if necessary, but not simply become sober as needed.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode33

[Casper]

1. where is your proof for this statement?

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/Texting_And_Driving_Worse_Than_Drinking_and_Driving

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/texting-is-more-dangerous-than-driving-drunk/

http://www.attorneys.com/legal_center/articles/dui_dwi/s/c/study_shows_driving_while_texting_more_dangerous_than_dui_/

http://www.thelawcorner.com/articles/9-

http://www.upstatedui.com/texting-while-driving-more-dangerous-than-dui.html

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/news/texting-more-dangerous-than-dui

[Steve Butters]

However, Adam commented that one can easily put away a cell phone if necessary, but not simply become sober as needed.

this was my point

what about my second remark in that post? guess were ignoring that?

[Casper]

this was my point

So put it away and don't pull it out until the vehicle is stopped.

[Steve Butters]

also Ben, from one of your links

Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake

Legally drunk: add 4 feet

at 70mph, 4ft is nothing... that small drop in reaction time doesnt mean anything, they were testing right at .08 alcohol level...what is that? one beer? give me a break 70mph is 103 ft per second...that comes out to around .03 seconds slower RT

if that article was valid at all, i would be asking for DUI laws to be repealed...most people at .08 arent even buzzed, let alone "drunk"

Edited December 15, 2011 by Steve Butters

[Casper]

also Ben, from one of your links

at 70mph, 4ft is nothing... that small drop in reaction time doesnt mean anything, they were testing right at .08 alcohol level...what is that? one beer? give me a break

if that article was valid at all, i would be asking for DUI laws to be repealed...most people at .08 arent even buzzed, let alone "drunk"

But .08 is the law.

[Casper]

also Ben, from one of your links

at 70mph, 4ft is nothing... that small drop in reaction time doesnt mean anything, they were testing right at .08 alcohol level...what is that? one beer? give me a break

if that article was valid at all, i would be asking for DUI laws to be repealed...most people at .08 arent even buzzed, let alone "drunk"

That 4ft at 70mph is 2ft at 35mph. That's a dead kid that ran out in front of you because you glanced down to answer your phone. You can't say it's safe dude. It just isn't.

[chevysoldier]

this was my point

what about my second remark in that post? guess were ignoring that?

and you could easily not drink in the first place, or sober up or get a DD.

As to your second part, there are already laws for wreckless or wanton disregard for doing dumb stuff.

most people at .08 arent even buzzed, let alone "drunk"

But .08 is the law.

yes but the law is also "driving while intoxicated" no limit needed. If you are blasted at .02, you will be cited for OVI. if you are totally "good" at .08, you will be cited for OVI.

ORC 5411.19

(A)(1) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.

(b) The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one per cent or more but less than seventeen-hundredths of one per cent by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s whole blood.

........

[Steve Butters]

That 4ft at 70mph is 2ft at 35mph.

its actually about a foot and a half due to speed difference - but i still stand by my initial statement

[Steve Butters]

But .08 is the law.

yes but the law is also "driving while intoxicated" no limit needed. If you are blasted at .02, you will be cited for OVI. if you are totally "good" at .08, you will be cited for OVI.

i guess i didnt make my argument clear

i was saying comparing people txting to people at .08 is not the same as comparing people txting to people at .2 BAC

the people ive seen wrecking while drunk, were all well beyond .08...not saying .08 you wont wreck, but i would venture to say the majority of DUI related accidents are caused by people above .08

[chevysoldier]

oh, and I'll add you can be cited under 4511.19 anywhere in the state. Yes the means even if you are riding your lawnmower on your own property drunk, crash into a tree and medics are called, you'll be charged.

Before tbut takes offense, it was just a comment in general.

Edited December 15, 2011 by chevysoldier

[Steve Butters]

oh, and I'll add you can be cited under 4511.19 anywhere in the state. Yes the means even if you are riding your lawnmower on your own property drunk, crash into a tree and medics are called, you'll be charged.

i never said you couldnt be cited - i said comparing people at .08 to txting like the article isnt a valid point for dui>txting because most accidents dui related the driver is above .08

im not sure why youre trying to read me dui laws im not even talking about the legal limit to be cited

[chevysoldier]

i guess i didnt make my argument clear

i was saying comparing people txting to people at .08 is not the same as comparing people txting to people at .2 BAC

the people ive seen wrecking while drunk, were all well beyond .08...not saying .08 you wont wreck, but i would venture to say the majority of DUI related accidents are caused by people above .08

.02, .08, .2, it depends on the person and how they handle alcohol. and how many people have you see wreck and then you saw their BAC? You can't go off the "news", you'll only see the bad ones where the guy was a high limit. You're not gonna hear much about the guy that wrecked at .02. Yes, people wreck at .02 and don't wreck at .2